行政主体义务设定的失衡及价值选择

行政主体义务设定是指行政主体在行政执法的过程中为相对一方当事人确定禁止规则或强加负担的行为 ,它是行政权的延伸。与其它类型的行政权行使一样 ,义务设定必须符合法定条件 ,同时又要符合行政合理原则 ,这也是行政法治、依法行政的要求。然而 ,行政法治实践中行政主体义务设定的失衡现象非常普遍 ,如对程序负责不对实体负责的失衡 ,以经济利益为重而以社会利益为轻的失衡等。因此 ,必须探讨义务设定中的合理价值选择 ,即有利于建立法律秩序、有利于实现公民权、有利于行政管理过程有效实现、充分体现行政伦理准则等四个方面的价值选择。     

International Rule of Law and Methodological Innovation

The practice of the international rule of law needs a theoretical guide, and the formulation of the theory of international law has to depend upon practice, which imposes new requirement upon the methodology of international law. Traditional research into legal doctrine is unfavorable to the creative exertion of international jurisprudence, and the research methods of social sciences are playing an increasingly important role in the methodological innovation of international law. From the perspective of promotion of the international rule of law, the study of international law needs to deep research a State’s motives, cause and innate logic in observing international aw, and law and economics can show its capability in this field. For the international rule of law, basic research needs to be carried about such social surroundings as where the rules are produced and applied and exerting influences. The research method of the sociology of law exactly hits the point. The application of empirical and experimental research methods offers a beforehand “rehearsal” chance for the process of the rule of law to grasp the pros and cons in the planning and practice of the rule of law. The cooperation between the research methods of social science and the traditional research method of international law can reasonably interpret the phenomena of international relations and promote the international rule of law.     

法律修辞的功能及隐患

修辞作为一种调动情感和诉诸日常合理观念的说服技术,能够增强法律的公信力.然而,法律修辞并非修辞在法律领域的简单运用,普通修辞建立在公共信念的基础上,注重大众所认可的合理,法律应用强调专业性质的法理,修辞经常诉诸情感,而法律则是逻辑推理的领域.在发挥修辞说服功能的同时,要想限制其对法律的侵蚀作用,我们必须以法律人群体的合法理念为标准,注重逻辑推理,增强对抗性论辩,克服修辞对法律的消解作用.     

论法律意识现代化的标准

法律意识现代化的标准是评价社会主体对现代法律和法治主观把握状况的标尺,包孕着法律形式观现代化和法律价值观现代化的标准,而公民对法律的信仰状况则是评价社会主体法律意识现代化程度的综合性指标.法律的形式合理性观念是现代法律形式特质的主观心理确证,它包括法律规范的形式严整性观念,法律体系的完备、和谐的观念,法律的程序化观念和法律的效益观念;而法律的价值合理性观念是现代市场经济和民主政治内在法权关系和现代法的价值理念的体现,它包括自由追求与理性自律相统一、个人权利主张与社会利益维护相统一、人格平等和坦然面对差别相统一以及法律是维护合法权威与防止、制约权力滥用的统一的观念等具体价值指标.     

法制下法治与法治下法制

法制下法治和法治下法制是两种不同的社会存在。法制下法治之治理主体单一,法治下法制治理主体多元;法制下法治依赖国家法正义观支持,法治下法制依赖多维正义观支持;法制下法治以人为治理客体,法治下法制则以人和法律同为治理客体。在特定历史阶段,法制下法治曾经起过积极的作用;但是随着社会发展,民主勃兴和社会转型的逐步推进,法制下法治已经成为中国法制建设的瓶颈,应为法治下法制的理论和实践所突破。法治下法制是多元法律规则并存于社会与依法办事之法治原则的结晶。通过各种法规则的冲突、互动和整合,法治自然会从理想走向现实。     

图形的逻辑力量：因果图的概念及其应用

本文旨在系统性地引介因果图方法,一种社会科学领域新近发展起来的探究因果推断的非参数估计工具。首先对因果图的基本概念和构型进行介绍,讨论变量之间不同“通路”对应的开启和阻断规则及因果推断中的三种偏差来源,即混淆偏差、过度控制偏差、内生性选择偏差。在此基础上,本文将因果图框架与现有定量社会科学研究中基于回归模型的因果推断方法思路进行融合,结合实际案例使用因果图阐释包括遗漏变量、样本选择、自选择及联立性在内的四种内生性问题,并对多元回归与匹配、代理变量、实验、工具变量、面板模型等因果推断方法的运行机制进行了图形化。最后,本文使用因果图厘清一些关于因果推断的不准确理解。     

依法执政与“党法”

十一届三中全会之前,＂党规党法＂主要是指中国共产党党章、党纪与其他党内的各种工作规则,＂党法＂不是法律,目前我们所说的＂党法＂与国法中的＂法＂不是一回事。本文认为,可以从广义和狭义两个方面来统称党的规章制度。依法执政的提出要求执政党的执政行为要有法律依据,这一规范执政党执政行为的法律正是＂党法＂。因此,＂党法＂一词具有极为丰富的内涵,它预示着党的制度化建设的未来方向与执政行为发展的两个重要阶段,所以建规立制是当前执政党依法执政的另一项重要任务。     

Humor and Politics

The problem of the relationship between formal logic and philosophy, which arose when formal logic arose, continues to concern both Soviet and foreign philosophers and logicians. Interest in this problem is traceable to a number of factors, among which, it should be noted at the outset, is the appearance of dialectical, logic. With the emergence of dialectical logic, the question of the relationship of formal logic to philosophy is posed anew. No matter how we approach the question of the subject matter of dialectical logic, there is no doubt of the fact that, being logic, it is concerned with the investigation of philosophical problems. It follows that logic (or part of logic, some form of logic) is at the same time philosophy or, at least, a portion of philosophy.     

行政强制设定权的原则与规则

作者认为,我国行政强制设定权的基本原则是行政强制权与行政职权的关系,行政强制设定权与宪法和法律所确立的法律制度基本框架的关系,行政强制权与公民、法人合法权益的关系,行政强制与现代法治理念的关系。而行政强制设定应当遵守的法律规则有授权规则,权利规则,时限规则,事项规则,补充规则。     

法律修辞与逻辑

论者通常把修辞与逻辑对立起来,很少论及二者如何统一于论证过程,而在法律领域尤其需要这种统一.法律的学科特点在于其推理前提的开放性和结论的封闭性,因而在法律推理过程中,需要通过修辞将开放的前提集合论证为可接受的封闭性前提集合,也需要通过逻辑根据封闭的前提得出必然的结论.文章通过对法律推理过程及其特点的分析,论证了法律修辞与逻辑的统一性,即逻辑是修辞,是最具说服力的一种修辞;修辞也是逻辑,是在无法直接进行演绎推理时所备选的逻辑.其目的都在于提高法律推理结论的可接受性.     

在理性与现实之间寻求司法的正义——兼论“以事实为根据,以法律为准绳”原则的发展和变化

在我国当下,形式理性的法律面临现实困境,即:司法裁决不能被公众认可,法律的权威和公信力也在下降.法官“以证据为根据”的裁判理念虽然符合法律实践理性的要求,然而也易引致对正义价值追求的放弃和忽视;公众则视“以客观事实为根据”为司法不言自明的正义要求.如何破解这一困局?文章对“以事实为根据,以法律为准绳”原则在我国的观念认知进行了梳理,认为该原则在公众与司法者之间存在认知差异,从而导致裁决不能被认可.回应型法的有关理论值得借鉴,它认为应以法律的目的缓和引导制度,使其不拘泥于形式主义和仪式性,以探究法律中蕴涵的公正价值.在司法裁判中,应以公正为价值,兼顾对外部社会现实的关照,建立起以“证据事实”为基础、以“客观事实”为依归的“法律真实”标准.     

Judicial Credibility in the We-media Era: Rationality,Constituent Elements and Construction

We-media’s influence on judicial credibility has become increasingly apparent in the changing modes of information communication. Interpretation of a sample of influential lawsuits in the light of reason will reveal the core elements shaping the public’s judgements on criminal cases, including both internal elements centering on trust, reputation and interaction and external elements centering on transaction costs. Our quantitative assessment of the role of trust, reputation and interaction in the public’s views on criminal justice plus a comparison of the differences between their understanding and that of grassroots legal officials reflect the fact that underlying these rational choices is the clouding of judicial credibility due to contravention of the rules of justice. If we are to build judicial credibility, it is essential that we establish a sound relationship between the public and the criminal justice system, a relationship based on upholding the idea of rule of law and respecting the rules of justice.     

多元权利基础、公权力权威与良法之治

推进中国法治进程 ,并不仅仅是法律制度的简单植入或法律体系的建构 ,也不仅仅是“依法治理”对秩序的促动 ,而关键在于重构国家与市民社会的良性互动关系。即大力推进市民社会自主性 ,以多元社会权利来平衡和制约国家权力 ,缩减国家权力职能和建立其合法性权威 ,并弘扬正义法精神以实现良法之治。只有这样 ,以权力制约和权利保障为核心取向的法治秩序才能最终确立起来。     

慈善概念的移植何以未完成:一个政策过程的分析

寻求法律移植与习俗的有机统一无疑是中国法律现代化最为重要的问题。由于缺乏微观政策过程的分析,对这一问题的探讨大多停留在宏观层面。本文从法律现代化和法律多元主义的理论视角出发,以《慈善法》中“慈善”概念的形成为例,探讨了法律移植与习俗如何通过立法体制影响法律的形成。研究发现,习俗通过回应性立法的制度安排以及立法者的双重身份被纳入到决策中。法律移植的慈善概念则通过法律专家与立法者的深度互动产生作用。然而,立法过程中提案与审议的分离以及政治官僚制的决策模式使得形式理性法律的建构面临双重消解。因此,促进立法体制的优化才能实现立法中形式理性与价值理性的有效融合。     

法律规范与法律规则--凯尔森与哈特的法律概念之比较

凯尔森和哈特对法律的概念有不同理解,凯尔森将规范作为法律的上位概念,而哈特则将规则作为法律的上位概念,法律规范和法律规则分别是他们认识法律的基本概念。凯尔森通过规范的观念强调了法律作为一个独立的逻辑体系的存在,奠定了法律科学独立的基础;哈特则通过规则的观念强调了法律同现实生活的密切联系,使法哲学在西方学术界重新恢复了活力。通过法律规范和法律规则的概念分析,对两位分析法学名家的理论可以有进一步的理解。     

法治的实质:自由与秩序的动态平衡

人是自由的存在物 ,也是遵循规则的存在物。自由和秩序的需求源于人类本性 ,人的个体性彰显为自由 ,人的社会性体现为秩序。法治是法律运行良好的“法大于权”的生活方式 ,法治的核心价值是自由 ,法治的基础价值是秩序。法治的自由与秩序价值难以在静态中达到平衡 ,法治的实质是寻求自由与秩序的动态平衡     

Partial information on decisional competences and the desirability of the expert rule in uncertain dichotomous choice situations

The paper analyzes the expert resolution problem by employing extended versions of the uncertain dichotomous choice model. The main purpose of this study is to illustrate how the analysis of optimal decision rules can be carried out while dispensing with the common restrictive assumption of full information regarding individual decisional competences. In contrast to most previous studies in this field we here evaluate the expert rule under alternative assumptions regarding the available partial information on judgmental competences rather than compare it in an ad hoc manner to some common alternative rules, such as simple majority rule. A fuller optimality analysis allowing the evaluation of all relevant decision rules, and not merely the expert rule, is attempted for a five-member panel of experts assuming a uniform distribution of individual competences. For three-member groups the optimality issue is resolved by assuming no information on individual competences and interpreting the expert rule as an even-chance lottery on skills.     

法律意义标志的诠释学审查

法律是人类通过规则所构筑的意义体系。然而 ,当人们对法律意义进行诠释时 ,所得出的法律意义每每大相径庭。这反映了在法律意义的理解上 ,“只要有理解 ,理解便会不同”的道理。那么 ,如何寻求法律的意义 :有人主张通过追问法律的合法性寻求其意义 ;有人主张通过品读立法者意志寻求其意义 ;有人主张法律的意义就在于法律的文本 ;还有人主张法律的意义在于人们通过对法律的对话而形成关于法律共识。文章站在诠释学的立场上 ,对如上法律的意义标志作了学理解说 ,以证成法律意义标志多元的诠释学理由     

Rules Trump Desires in Preschoolers’ Predictions of Group Behavior

The objective of this article is to investigate the way children weigh conventional rules against desires when considering how a group will behave. To do so, two experiments involving a prediction task in which desires were pitted against conventional rules were presented to three‐ to five‐year‐old children. In Experiment 1, four scenarios were established as classroom scenes in which either one protagonist or three protagonists had a desire that went against an explicit conventional rule. In the individual control condition, the choices linked to the rules were at chance whereas, in the group condition, the participants predicted that all the protagonists would end up following the rule. Given that both conditions in Experiment 1 implied four rule followers in the design, Experiment 2 staged not three but seven potential rule transgressors to see whether the desire of the majority might undermine the rule. Results showed no majority effect: participants expected protagonists to act counter to their desire and to follow the rule. Such results suggest that children as young as three‐year‐old favor rules over desires when they have to predict the behavior of a group, whether it be the majority or not. Possible implications of these intriguing findings are discussed.